Maya and Avidya

[Guest guest]

Rajah-ji Iyer wrote:

so Sat "karana" doesn't arise at all acc to Sankara.If a karana is attributed,it is not Satyam..

with respect to all

S.Rajah Iyer

||||||||||||||||||

Namaste Rajah-ji,

When the series of approximations that are constantly being adjusted come to an end all there is left is pure limitless being one without a second. As you say there will be then or there is, even now, nothing happening.

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin , " ombhurbhuva " <ombhurbhuva

wrote: " When the series of approximations that are constantly being

adjusted come to an end all there is left is pure limitless being one

without a second. "

 

Dear Sri Michaelji,

 

When I read the above stated statements a couple of doubts arose.

Is what you have stated an actual fact or is it a mere concept? If it

is a fact how that can be verified as a fact? Does " pure limitless

being one without a second " really and actually exist HERE and NOW.

If it exists how can one know the existence of it? What is the

instrument and methodology to be used for knowing that entity?

 

Please do not mistake me for having asked these questions. It is

very essential in Vedantic discussions that whenever a doctrine is

stated it should be shown as a verified and verifiable TRUTH.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " antharyami_in " <sathvatha

wrote:

>

Sunder ji I would like to

> have your critical opinion on the issue if possible please.

>

 

Namaste Devanathan-ji,

 

This task, I must frankly confess, is way beyond my capacity

to embark on! It would be like an ant requesting an elephant to move

and make way for its journey! Reminds me also of the parable in Kena

Upanishad where the gods prided themselves on their victory,

oblivious to Brahman being the source ('cause'?) of it.

 

It seems to me that every metaphysical approach to Reality

ends in a paradox, and logic bows its head to That (yato vAcho

nivartane').

 

When Krishna says that Atman/Brahman cannot be known by study

of the Vedas, etc. (Gita 11:48 & 53), I take it to mean that the

study still has a heuristic value, but far beyond it is - That, a

flood compared with a mere pond (Gita 2:46).

 

When two entities (nAma-rUpa) are inextriably united, logical

speech appears to stop in its track. Can one say dreamless sleep is

the 'cause' of happiness? or the waking state is the 'cause' of

duality? The cause-effect analysis appears to constrain one to the

time-space continuum; Shiva and Shakti are inseparable(eg. Gita 9:10).

 

May the Grace grant us the devotion ('ananya-bhakti') to

realise the Infinity of our true nature (sva-svarUpa').

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Devanathanji - PraNAms

 

Beautiful - Yes I agree with you that time concept need not be directly hooked

with cause-effect relation particularly in relation to creation which is cyclic.

 

--- On Sat, 12/13/08, antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote:

 

There is no hard and fast rule that the cause-effect relationship is

strictly captured within the realms of time. For instance when Sruti

says `AtmanaH akasaH sambhutaH' –`Akasah originated from Atman' it

clearly means to denote Atman as the cause and Akasa as its product.

 

 

The cause and effect relationship here is not within the frames of

time; I personally don't encourange personality issues unless it is

entertained by my critics.

 

----

I would still avoid that since we are all in the learning process.

Rule of the Law is that others do it does not justify our doing it - right?

 

Moderators keep reminding everyone to keep personalities out and keep the

discussion focused on the issues. For the most part, people do follow the rules

and some time slips do occur and it is important for all of us to restrain

ourselves from the temptation of reciprocating. Let us be magnanimous.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

Here is one paragraph from M.K. Venkatrama Iyer's book of Advaita

Vedanta, published in 1964. He was one of the most distinguished

students of Dr. S. Radhakrishnan and also of Prof. Hiriyanna.

 

QUOTE

 

Though the term MAyA does not explicitly occur in the older

Upanishads, the term avidyA occurs fairly frequently in them. In

essence it is not different from MAyA. AvidyA relates to the finite

Self while MAyA is the adjunct of the Cosmic Self. In its individual

aspect it is known as AvidyA while in its cosmic aspect it is known

as MAyA. In any case its function is to suppress the real nature of

things and present something else in its place. AvidyA and MAyA both

stand for delusion which has the effect of breaking up the original

unity of the Real and presenting it as subject and object, as agent

and enjoyer, doer and the result of the deed. Whether we call it MAyA

or avidyA, it connotes the principle of differentiation that is

implicit in human thinking. It is the nature of thought to break up

the original unity, analyse it into its parts and then seek to put

them together. At bottom therefore there is no difference between

avidyA and MAyA.

 

UNQUOTE.

 

pRAnaMS TO ALL ADVAITINS.

PROFVK